..start with post #69. imo this is reason enough to shut down the event. instead of a debate on whether or not these are valid reasons for shutting down the events the debate moves to a theoretical level of whether bannon benefits or not. with some creating scenarios to back up their positions. as if the important issue here is bannon himself. i say he is not..the response to him is.

What an odd response -- of course the issue of whether Bannon benefits is central to which response is best.

..not for the coalition and not for me.

Again I addressed that post directly: nothing in that post addresses an argument about why it is better to ban him. They speak to what he is and not how to deal with him and the risks of the response making him stronger. I spoke to this at length. How can you say I did not?

It is my argument that has not been responded to.

..the post doesn't talk about banning bannon. banning was injected into the conversation upthread, not from the coalition.

..here is just one quote from the piece that hasn't been addressed.

quote:

The line between respectful debate representing diverse views and providing a platform for views that are violent in their intent can be a fine one. Bannon seeks to dismantle the very principles that enabled his participation in this debate. By offering him the space to articulate his outlook, the Munk Debates imply their legitimacy. It confers respectability on them. Bannon’s remarks and influence have real consequences for us, for all Torontonians, and for the majority of people around the world. Indeed, these consequences are concrete for countless groups and individuals every day.

I disagree. Trying to suppress confers more power to his ideas.

I absolutely disagree that holding a debate confers legitimacy or respectability to one side of it.

I disagree that these debates are designed to address Bannon's views on anything other than the resolution. If he gets into his hate ideas, then arrest him. Warn him beforehand even. Greet him with protest. But to claim that the debate on populism is an endorsement of an opinion on something else is needlessly doing what you say you are trying to avoid.

I also disagree that Bannon speaking in Toronto has greater consequences in Toronto than him speaking in Atlanta other than the opportunity to respond to him with protest. People can hear him in toronto regardless.

Sure it is unfortunate that he was invited. But trying (and probably failing) to get him uninvited is more likely to have a negative effect on Toronto than letting him come and giving him the biggest protest we can muster.

..i know you disagree. so i'll leave it at that for now. maybe a new development will spur another exchange beteen us on the subject.

Sure -- there is no fundamental disagreement here in my opinion but one of tactics and the best response.

The answer is not to silence him it is to respond to him -- at the grass roots level. To make that response so powerful that observers get an education on what "populism" can be. Based in Toronto, I think we could get a better turnout than what Trump got for his inaugration to tell his proxy what we think of his ideas.

..this is a creation not reality. the folks that could bring this together have already decided to shut the the debate down.

No - they have decided to try. They do not have the power to presume success.

If anything, a large planned protest would give the city a reason to be able to cancel the event as a disruption and risk - logistical reasons. If that is what they want. This would be less useful to Bannon anyway than if it was c

The presumption that their letter is the only response and would work is the creation here.

If that is their only plan and there is no contingency to protest their action would be short sighted. Do you really think that they will just give up if the organizers tell them to get stuffed?

..your correct it is to try. no one is presuming it is the only option, it is the coalition's option. do you see something else being organized?

The answer is not to silence him it is to respond to him -- at the grass roots level. To make that response so powerful that observers get an education on what "populism" can be. Based in Toronto, I think we could get a better turnout than what Trump got for his inaugration to tell his proxy what we think of his ideas.

..this is a creation not reality. the folks that could bring this together have already decided to shut the the debate down.

No - they have decided to try. They do not have the power to presume success.

If anything, a large planned protest would give the city a reason to be able to cancel the event as a disruption and risk - logistical reasons. If that is what they want. This would be less useful to Bannon anyway than if it was c

The presumption that their letter is the only response and would work is the creation here.

If that is their only plan and there is no contingency to protest their action would be short sighted. Do you really think that they will just give up if the organizers tell them to get stuffed?

..your correct it is to try. no one is presuming it is the only option, it is the coalition's option. do you see something else being organized?

No and this is what I urge as the better response. I think the attempt is a waste of resources since it is uncertain and even if it worked would be used to benefit Bannon.

A large protest against him cannot be used by him in any way and is virtually certain to be successful -- it is just a quesiton of statisatics as to how much so. I am mystified as to why the energy is not going to that.

The energy of that protest would also be empowering and very useful for building the general movement. It would also be an opportunity to bring people together who will also protest Ford -- and that is another opportunity not to miss.

To respond more to the issue of their reasons -- you have them bolded upthread. While the points are valid in themselves they do not justify the response. He states that he craves suppression - why give it to him? The other points are points in favour of a judgment that he is dangerous and vile, not that the right reponse is to give him the banning he would probably be able to use.

He cannot be silenced by us. It is arrogant to think otherwise. We can only protest. Instead of trying to stop this debate the time and effort should be spent on getting the biggest protest organized to greet him. Trump won't dare come to Canada. Let's show Bannon why. Let people know that nthey can come out and send a message to Bannon (and Trump) about what we think of his ideas. Let the power of the protest answer the debate about which is the future.

The fearful response of trying to avoid what Bannon says in this way is counter-productive. The argument is lost before it can begin: the reason people could even want to stop him is becuase he already is being heard. Greet him. Tell him what we think of him.

..i don't disagree totally with what your saying sean. i have another perspective though. one of the things that surprised the most coming to babble was the lack of knowledge of how grassroots organizing works. building movements comes from seizing the moment when one spontaneously arises. this is an opportunity to build something greater especially in the face of of the ford election.

And taking the moment would be about organizing a response to what is out there not banning it to pretend that it is not there. The movement against Bannon may be at the grass roots level much better served by a response to what he says rather than by trying to prevent it (and probably failing).

..agree or disagree the movement has taken a decision sean. i say suppot it. you have said more than once that you voted ndp not because you agreed with everthing they do and say. this can apply in this instance.

What is the "movement"? I do not associate with a group for the sake of it. This response is controversial and ill-advised in my opinion.

You misunderstand my position with the NDP -- I do not support it for the sake of supporting it when it is wrong. I vote and take the best option available. I will always say that questioning and criticising the movement (whatever movement that is) makes it stronger and supporting blindly makes it weaker. My entire history here of over 15 years has been about that. I believe that we have to question constructively from within. I have never agreed to support for what cannot win on logic. This way of thinking is a losing proposition.

This is not the best option. So I disagree and do not support it.

You talk about grass roots being more important than leadership. This is about that. This is not some movement where some leaders tell us what to think or to act.

..no one is trying to force you to do anything sean. or how to think and act.

..what leadership are you talking about sean?

You are pressuring me to stand down for some idea of solidarity even though I disagree with the action and think it is counterproductive and harmful. This was your argument I responded to.

Any leadership. You don't win arguments by telling people to support those who decided something that that those people argue is wrong.

..i'm sorry you see my posts as pressuring. i have no intent to do that. my intent is to only make arguments and of course to make my position clear.

I hate the way the debate sponsors framed this whole thing. The resolution is "The future of Western politics is populist not liberal." Arguing for populism is a neo-nazi racist. And for liberalism, we have a neo-conservative war monger and all around right wing tool. For a real debate about this resolution, you might pit Bernie Sanders for the populists against Bill Clinton for the liberals. Or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez against David Brooks. Instead, the Munks chose to put a nazi up against a fairly hard conservative. What bullshit.

Fascinating thread. One of Canada's leading imperial oligarchs is hosting their annual debate. They understand the value of shifting the debate to the right. A debate between a neoconservative fascist and a overtly white supremacist fascist. The source of the problem is obviously the Munk's and their undo influence over the parameters of our public discourse. However that is what you can afford to do when your companies engage in some of the worst environmental practices all over the planet.

Fascinating thread. One of Canada's leading imperial oligarchs is hosting their annual debate. They understand the value of shifting the debate to the right. A debate between a neoconservative fascist and a overtly white supremacist fascist. The source of the problem is obviously the Munk's and their undo influence over the parameters of our public discourse. However that is what you can afford to do when your companies engage in some of the worst environmental practices all over the planet.

This is not a free speech issue. The Munk's use a charity facade to shape the narrative of our political discourse. They have bought and paid for this privilege. It is in effect a semi-annual advertisement for fascism lite where TO's elite get to use their businesses to buy tickets that are used as expenses against taxes.

This is not a free speech issue. The Munk's use a charity facade to shape the narrative of our political discourse. They have bought and paid for this privilege. It is in effect a semi-annual advertisement for fascism lite where TO's elite get to use their businesses to buy tickets that are used as expenses against taxes.

So, then the solution is to remove the Munks' charity status? Not saying that would be a bad idea, in fact, it's likely the ONLY idea to get them to stop doing what they're doing. Because as long as they are enjoying charity status, they are not likely to care what their opponents think about how they use it.

This is not a free speech issue. The Munk's use a charity facade to shape the narrative of our political discourse. They have bought and paid for this privilege. It is in effect a semi-annual advertisement for fascism lite where TO's elite get to use their businesses to buy tickets that are used as expenses against taxes.

So, then the solution is to remove the Munks' charity status? Not saying that would be a bad idea, in fact, it's likely the ONLY idea to get them to stop doing what they're doing. Because as long as they are enjoying charity status, they are not likely to care what their opponents think about how they use it.

Interesting to note how our government plays fast and loose with charitable status - no ideological or political activity for the lefties and not so much for the right. The Munks are definitely right wing lobbyists who are using their charitable status to foist their particular ideology on us through these debates. And in so many other ways.

Arrests were made at the debate protest last night and they were violent. A colleague of mine and her friend were arrested and her friend, who was standing beside her, was punched in the face by a cop. Others were injured as well. Once again our paramilitary friends defended fascists at the expense of legitimate protest.

It actually didn't seem to make any sense, because Bannon was not well received by the audience. His points were regularly greeted with grumbling and laughing from the audience. And he at one point was cornered on a question on connecting right-wing violence to populist rhetoric. On the whole they did not buy his message.

This board is the most tone deaf thing I've ever seen. You want to know why Banon's populism is winning? Look in the bloody mirror. Canada has the exact same elite problem as the States. You want to know why the entire country hates "the elites"? Look at that article about how cleaning up the oil sands will cost an absurb $260 Billion. Or the delay on getting any new pipeline built for prairie oil. You know who hates that? The prairie elite! Out here the elite is all scientists and engineers who get shit done. The populace is all socially liberal, so all those battles you imagine..already won. But they are still Albertans, so that fiscal conservative battle is a real thing. _Signed, that weird Albertan conservative who posts here sometimes...

I hate the way the debate sponsors framed this whole thing. The resolution is "The future of Western politics is populist not liberal." Arguing for populism is a neo-nazi racist. And for liberalism, we have a neo-conservative war monger and all around right wing tool. For a real debate about this resolution, you might pit Bernie Sanders for the populists against Bill Clinton for the liberals. Or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez against David Brooks. Instead, the Munks chose to put a nazi up against a fairly hard conservative. What bullshit.

I'll go a step further and argue that of the two absolutely revolting monsters who were in this debate, when we look at what they've actually done rather than just what they've said, that David Frum is still responsible for way, way worse crap.

But they are still Albertans, so that fiscal conservative battle is a real thing.

Actually, contrary to the notion that Albertans were neo-liberal avant la lettre, the province has not historically been that fiscally conservative, at least not until that became the dominant ideology everywhere. If you click on the chart at the bottom of this article, it's difficult to find a bigger provincial deficit anywhere than the one that the Tories ran in 86, and even then, there wasn't any sort of pro-austerity backlash until '93.

I agree that Alberta in 2018 is not excessively SoCon, at least in relation to other provinces(see the link below to find out which province, as of 2017, still required a doctor's referral to book an appointment for an abortion, and the impact this has had on women in that province). Which is why Kenney is now going out of his way to make it appear like his party is bozo-free.

Frum did. And given his own politics I am surprised at some of the points he raised, from linking Trump's economic policies to Peron's Argentina, to non-white voter suppression, to the role of police agitators in violence. And pointing out that populism is based on nothing but division and hatred, and doesn't help those it claims to.

But then it wasn't a debate about right-left politics so much as established order, at least in theory. Even Bannon pointed out that it was a choice between nationalist populism and "socialist" populism - a point he didn't follow up on, and which was likely a bit of redbaiting.

I know the line about not debating "Nazis" and there was a lot about the event that was cloyingly hypocritical - like praising freespeech and clapping for the protester as they removed her from the hall (though left the banner). But given that he was talking in front of a crowd of wealthy patrons, I think it is good that Frum said the things he did. If it wasn't a lesson about conservative crimes at least it was indictment of libertarian ones.

And at one point the moderator pinned down Bannon on the connection between his rhetoric and violence. After repeatedly sidestepping he gave a very thin denial.

Frum did. And given his own politics I am surprised at some of the points he raised, from linking Trump's economic policies to Peron's Argentina, to non-white voter suppression, to the role of police agitators in violence. And pointing out that populism is based on nothing but division and hatred, and doesn't help those it claims to.

Well, there are a few things about Peron's Argentina which conservatives of Frum's ilk would probably dislike: Mrs. Peron herself was the immediate target of the 1976 coup, and left-wing Peronists were well represented among those persecuted during the Dirty War.

Of course it was a debate between two people on the right, but I don't know. I'm sure Frum was pretending to use a pillow when he pointed out the discrepancy between Bannon's military record and de facto treason, but I think it was more a case of damning with praise.

Sure a lot of people are going to say it is an irrelevant distinction, but my guess is it had some effect for the people in that room.

Of course it was a debate between two people on the right, but I don't know. I'm sure Frum was pretending to use a pillow when he pointed out the discrepancy between Bannon's military record and de facto treason, but I think it was more a case of damning with praise.

Sure a lot of people are going to say it is an irrelevant distinction, but my guess is it had some effect for the people in that room.

I think there is a certain bit of what the psychologists call "out-group homogeneity" at play when people assume that intra-tendency debates don't matter, because "those guys all believe the same thing anyway". I've heard a few right-wingers say stuff like "Ah, you really believe there's any big fight between Notley and Horgan? Those NDPers are all just a buncha tree-huggers who want everyone to ride bikes to work in 40 below weather." I don't think most people on babble would agree that the fight between the BC and Alberta governments is as trivial as all that.

And, even regardless of how real the ideological differences are, if people within the movement view the differences as real, that can have serious electoral consequences for everyone. If "Frumites" in a given conservative party are unhappy with the state of the party under the "Bannonites", that can lead to the formation of splinter party, which in turn leads to vote splitting, and so on and so forth.

This is not a free speech issue. The Munk's use a charity facade to shape the narrative of our political discourse. They have bought and paid for this privilege. It is in effect a semi-annual advertisement for fascism lite where TO's elite get to use their businesses to buy tickets that are used as expenses against taxes.

So, then the solution is to remove the Munks' charity status? Not saying that would be a bad idea, in fact, it's likely the ONLY idea to get them to stop doing what they're doing. Because as long as they are enjoying charity status, they are not likely to care what their opponents think about how they use it.

Interesting to note how our government plays fast and loose with charitable status - no ideological or political activity for the lefties and not so much for the right. The Munks are definitely right wing lobbyists who are using their charitable status to foist their particular ideology on us through these debates. And in so many other ways.

The Munk Debate is run by a little-known charitable foundation that is quietly bankrolling right-wing think tanks across Canada

November 2, 2018

....The upcoming event, pitting the alt-right Donald Trump advisor and former head of the racist, far-right Breitbart.com against former George W. Bush advisor David Frum, is being organized by the Munk Debates, a “charitable initiative” of a group called the Aurea Foundation.....

The Aurea Foundation was established in 2006 by Peter Munk, the billionaire former CEO of Barrick Gold – “the world’s largest gold mining company” – who passed away earlier this year....

In practice, the Aurea Foundation is one of the biggest funders sustaining a network of right-wing think tanks in Canada.

Canada Revenue Agency disclosures for 2017 show Aurea distributed nearly $1.8 million in funds. A few beneficiaries include:

The Fraser Institute ($518,238)

Macdonald-Laurier Institute ($250,000)

Montreal Economic Institute ($250,000)

Canadian Constitution Foundation ($250,000)

C. D. Howe Institute ($225,000)

Manning Foundation ($100,000)

These “gifts” to other registered charities and qualified donees accounted for nearly two-thirds (63%) of Aurea’s total expenditures in 2017.

Between 2011 and 2017, Aurea’s regular donations to these right-wing organizations have totaled in the millions:

The Fraser Institute ($1,675,568)

MacDonald-Laurier Institute ($1,255,000)

Frontier Centre for Public Policy ($1,204,000)

Montreal Economic Institute ($968,000)

C.D. Howe Institute ($870,000)

Canadian Constitution Foundation ($425,000)

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ($275,000)

Atlantic Institute for Market Studies ($252,500)

According to group’s charitable disclosures, the right-wing Fraser Institute has been a top recipient of Aurea Foundation cash over the years....

I hate the way the debate sponsors framed this whole thing. The resolution is "The future of Western politics is populist not liberal." Arguing for populism is a neo-nazi racist. And for liberalism, we have a neo-conservative war monger and all around right wing tool. For a real debate about this resolution, you might pit Bernie Sanders for the populists against Bill Clinton for the liberals. Or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez against David Brooks. Instead, the Munks chose to put a nazi up against a fairly hard conservative. What bullshit.

I'll go a step further and argue that of the two absolutely revolting monsters who were in this debate, when we look at what they've actually done rather than just what they've said, that David Frum is still responsible for way, way worse crap.

Frum did. And given his own politics I am surprised at some of the points he raised, from linking Trump's economic policies to Peron's Argentina, to non-white voter suppression, to the role of police agitators in violence. And pointing out that populism is based on nothing but division and hatred, and doesn't help those it claims to.

Well, there are a few things about Peron's Argentina which conservatives of Frum's ilk would probably dislike: Mrs. Peron herself was the immediate target of the 1976 coup, and left-wing Peronists were well represented among those persecuted during the Dirty War.

Happily, this was not the case, as people came out to protest in droves. These protesters became a spectral presence in the hall, frequently invoked for effect by both speakers, with Frum claiming to be an ambassador to their concerns. In moderator Rudyard Griffiths’ introduction, physical attendees are congratulated for braving the ranks outside. Courage is the word; this virtue is extended to the debate’s sponsors, to its founder, even to those streaming online; those protesting the event are cowards by comparison, it seems. This high-minded pacifism of the word is as disingenuous as the ensuing program, throughout which a notorious hawk and a white nationalist skirt agreement at every chance.

Bannon thanks the demonstrators for exercising their free speech; he understands that if their protest can be converted from a barricade into a gathering, from a demand into only more discourse, then he will have gained something by their presence. Moments into Bannon’s address, a protestor unfurls a banner denouncing both the speaker and the event. Bannon looks charmed, and Griffiths reappears to restore order: “Let’s have a loud round of applause to thank this woman for her free speech rights. We appreciate that.” The audience whistles and crows at some length, Bannon too, before moderator Rudyard Griffiths addresses the protester from the stage: “We’re going to follow a policy tonight. This person has been cautioned. If she does not stop she will unfortunately be asked to leave this debate.” And moments later: “Sorry, you’re still engaging. Officers, if we can move forward with our plan, we’re going to remove this person from the hall. A big round of applause for the Toronto police services this evening. Fabulous job.”